Posted on 07/21/2021 1:22:57 AM PDT by Kevmo
LENR Solution of the Cosmological Lithium Problem # V.I.Vysotskii1 , M.V.Vysotskyy1 , Sergio Bartalucci2 1 Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, 01601, Ukraine 2
http://ikkem.com/iccf23/orppt/ICCF23-OA-10%20Vysotskii.pdf
INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, 00044 Italy # E-mail: vivysotskii@gmail.com, Volodymyrska Str. 64, Kyiv, 01601, Ukraine
The basis of modern cosmology is the Big Bang theory. The validity of this theory is based on three main facts: a) the redshift of spectral lines of distant stars; b) the presence of cosmic microwave background radiation; c) the theory of primary Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) of light H2 , He3 , He4 , Li6 and Li7 isotopes in expanding very hot plasma.
Calculations of the formation and evolution of the first three isotopes were repeated many times and are in very good agreement with the results of modern astronomical observations. The problem (paradox) arises during the comparison of the results of theoretical calculations based on the BBN model with data of astronomical observations for the concentration of Li isotopes.
The modern registered relative (LiA/p) concentration of Li7 isotope is 3 times less ( 77 7 ( ) ( / ) /( / ) 1/3 K Li Li p Li p ≡ ≈ observ BBN ) than the calculated initial (BBN) value, which according to theoretical estimates should remain approximately the same now.
In contrast, observed concentration of Li6 isotope is 300 ... 500 times higher 6 ( ( ) 300...500) K Li ≈ than predicted by BBN.
The maximal difference between the BBN estimations and astronomical observations corresponds to old stars of the first generation (t≈1010years) and decreases for younger stars. This circumstance allows us to conclude that such an effect is associated not with a one-time phenomenon, but with multiple repeatable processes in the volume of stars, the result of which monotonously increases with time!
The lack of a substantiated explanation for such radical differences casts doubt on the correctness of the Big Bang model and all subsequent analysis of the cosmological process of global nucleosynthesis. There were many unsuccessful attempts to resolve this paradox through the use of “standard” nuclear reactions of creation 42 6 He H Li ( ,) , γ 43 7 7 7 He He Be Be Li ( ,) ( ,) − γ → βγ and destruction 6 7 Li p Be (,) , γ 6 3 Li p He (,) , α 62 4 Li H He ( ,) , α 62 8 Li H Be ( ,) , γ 7 4 Li p He (,) α of Li6 and Li7 isotopes in volume of star.
Correct analysis based on these reactions shows that the observed changes of the concentrations KLi of these isotopes after the Big Bang can’t be provided for any time, any density and any star temperature! We have shown for the first time that these lithium paradoxes can be well described by the processes of nuclear transformations in the volume of stars in the region near the boundary between the radiative transfer zone and the convective zone if we take into account the influence of star shock waves on these reactions.
A specific mechanism for optimizing of nuclear reactions is associated with the formation of coherent correlated states (CCS) of protons and deuterons, which occurs at the front of such shock waves [1,2] and which leads to a short-term generation of very large fluctuations of the energy of these particles δE ≥ 10…20keV at a typical temperature kT≈100eV in this region of star.
To realize the observed change in the concentrations of both isotopes, 1...10 powerful shock waves per year for 1010 years are needed in any part of discussed star region.
The main reasons of Li7 and Li6 paradox are connected with effective CCS formation in 7 4 Li p He (,) α reaction and fundamental impossibility of CCS formation in alternative 6 76 3 Li p Be Li p He (,) , (, ) γ α reactions in any stars [2,3].
[1] V.I.Vysotskii, M.V.Vysotskyy, “Coherent correlated states and low-energy nuclear reactions in non-stationary systems”, European Phys. Journal A, v. 49, issue 8: 99, 2013. [2] V.I.Vysotskii, M.V.Vysotskyy, “Features of correlated states and a mechanism of self-similar selection of nuclear reaction channels involving low-energy charged particles”, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, v.128, No. 6, pp. 856–864, 2019. [3] S.Bartalucci, V.I.Vysotskii, M.V.Vysotskyy, “Correlated states and nuclear reactions: An experimental test with low energy beams”, Physical Review AB, v.22, No. 5, 054503, 2019.
#Sergio Bartalucci1 , Vladimir I. Vysotskii2 and Mykhailo V. Vysotskyy2 1 INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, 00044 Italy 2 Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, 01601 Ukraine E-mail: Sergio.Bartalucci@lnf.infn.it
http://ikkem.com/iccf23/orppt/ICCF23-OA-09%20Bartalucci.pdf
First experimental test of the Correlated-Coherent quantum States (CCS) model [1-2] is described in this paper, showing its potentialities in the explanation of anomalous effects in Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics, such as excess energy production in LENR and the big cosmological enigma of primordial lithium [3]. The occurrence of nuclear reactions at very low energy is a clear indication of a strong enhancement of Coulomb barrier transmissivity, which has been observed in several other accelerator experiments [4-5]. These experiments are, however, downwards limited in energy (Emin ³ 5 keV) due to the strong electrostatic repulsion. In the present experiment ([6-7] for more details) the 7 Li(p,a) 4 He reaction has been investigated at a c.m. energy around 450 eV, where the expected “standard” cross section is of the order of 10-50 barn! The detected a are unambiguously identified as coming from the above reaction and cannot be ascribed to background. In the same experiment no evidence of the alternative reaction 6 Li(p,a) 3 He has been found, according to the expectation of CCS theory [6-8]. Some technical issues, which are related to this difficult experiment are discussed and possible suggestions for improvement and planning of the next activity on this topic are also presented. [1] Dodonov V.V., et al., Generalized uncertainty relation and correlated coherent states, Phys. Lett. A79, (1980) 150, 10.1016/0375-9601(80)90231-5. [2] Vysotskii V.I. et al., Coherent correlated states and low energy nuclear reactions in nonstationary systems, Eur. Phys. J. A 49, 99 (2013), and references therein. [3] Fields B.D., The primordial Lithium Problem, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2011, 61:47-68, 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102010-130445; Bertulani C.A., et al., “Cosmological lithium problems”, EPJ Web of Conferences, 184 01002, (2018), 10.1051/epjconf/201818401002. [4] Raiola F. et al., Enhanced electron screening in d(d,p)t for deuterated Ta*, Eur. Phys. J. A 13, 377–382 (2002) 10.1007/s10050-002-8766-5; Fiorentini G. et al., Fusion rate enhancement due to energy spread of colliding nuclei, Phys. Rev. C67, (2003) 014603, 10.1103/PhysRevC.67.014603; Kasagi J. et al., Strongly Enhanced Li + D Reaction in Pd Observed in Deuteron Bombardment on PdLix with Energies between 30 and 75 keV, Jou. Phys. Soc. of Japan 73, No. 3, 608–612 (2004), 10.1143/JPSJ.71.2881. [5] Czerski K. et al., Screening and resonance enhancements of the 2 H(d,p)3 H reaction yield in metallic environments, Eur. Phys. Lett. 113 (2016) 22001 and refs. therein, 10.1209/0295- 5075/113/22001. [6] Vysotskii V.I. et al., Features of the Formation of Correlated Coherent States and Nuclear Fusion Induced by the Interaction of Slow Particles with Crystals and Free Molecules, J. Exp. Theor. Phys., 127, (3), p. 479 (2018) and refs. therein, 10.1134/S1063776118080253. [7] Bartalucci S. et al., Correlated states and nuclear reactions: an experimental test with low energy beams, Phys. Rev. Acc. and Beams 22, (2019) 054503, 10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.22.054503. [8] Vysotskii V.I. et al., Features of correlated states and a mechanism of self-similar selection of nuclear reaction channels involving low energy charged particles, J. Exp. Theor. Phys., 128 (6), p. 856 (2019).
for the cold fusion ping list
The Cold Fusion/LENR Ping List
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
Keywords: ColdFusion; LENR; lanr; CMNS
chat—science
—
Vortex-L
http://tinyurl.com/pxtqx3y
Best book to get started on this subject:
EXCESS HEAT
Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed by Charles Beaudette
https://www.abebooks.com/9780967854809/Excess-Heat-Why-Cold-Fusion-0967854806/plp
Updated No Internal Trolling Rules for FR per Jim Robinson
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3928396/posts
If someone says stop, then stop. Do not enter onto a thread on a topic you don’t like just to disrupt, rattle cages, poke sticks, insult the regulars, or engage in trolling activities, etc. ~Jim Robinson
Please refrain from posting anything that doesn’t legitimately address the issue.
Something is going on in this segment of science. There are a considerable number of research groups studying the matter. -Sidebar Moderator
We have not seen the oldest stars, just the oldest stars that we can see...................
Interesting. This ties in with the hypothesis that metallic hydrogen (as found in stars) can form a lattice configuration that provides a substrate for LENR to occur even in stars. That lattice structure can explain the formation, within stars, of ALL elements, even the very heavy ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=080YgC45EJ8&t=37s
One thing I have learned in working with a Patent Agent to draft patents is just how "slippery" the English language is. Getting absolute accuracy and precision of statement is HARD.
Yup. One of the highest luminaries in Japan’s Nuclear program, Yoshiaki Arata, proposed a LENR theory touching on that.
Formation of condensed metallic deuterium lattice and
nuclear fusion
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYformationo.pdf
By Yoshiaki Arata, M.J.A., 1
and Yue-Chang Zhang
Osaka University, 11-1, Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047
(Contributed by Yoshiaki Arata, M.J.A., March 12, 2002)
Abstract:
It was confirmed that nanometer-sized metal powder (atom clusters or simply
clusters) can absorb an extremely large amount of deuterium/hydrogen atoms more than
300% against the number density of host metal.
Within such clusters, the bonding potential
widely changes from the center region to peripheral ones, so that the zig-zag atom-chains are
always formed dynamically around the average position of atoms and the degree of filling up
of the constituent atoms for the fcc type metal reduces to about 0.64 from 0.74 in bulk metal,
i.e., vacant space increases to 0.36 from 0.26.
As a result, a large amount of
deuterium/hydrogen atoms are instantly dissolved into such host-clusters at room
temperature. Furthermore, “metallic deuterium lattice” (or hydrogen one) including locally
the “deuterium-lump” with the ultrahigh density is formed with body centered cuboctahedral
structure which belongs to a unit cell of the host lattice, while such event cannot be realized
at all within bulk metals.
It seems that nuclear fusion in solid (“solid fusion”) takes place in
the highly condensed “deuterium-lump” inside each unit cell of the “metallic deuterium
lattice” (or mixed hydrogen one) which is formed inside each cell of the host metal lattice. It
is considered, therefore, that each unit cell of the host lattice corresponds to minimum units
of “solid fusion reactor”.
In order to achieve “solid fusion”, just the generation of the
ultrahigh density “deuterium-lump” (simply “pycnodeuterium-lump”) coagulated locally
inside the unit cell of the host lattice and/or the highly condensed metallic deuterium lattice
should be an indispensable condition.
It was Yoshiaki Arata’s pycnodeuterium results which triggered my re-interest in LENR.
How I Made Money from Cold Fusion
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts
I understood the first two of these supports for the big bang —but not the third:
The basis of modern cosmology is the Big Bang theory. The validity of this theory is based on three main facts: a) the redshift of spectral lines of distant stars; b) the presence of cosmic microwave background radiation; c) the theoIt ry of primary Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) of light H2 , He3 , He4 , Li6 and Li7 isotopes in expanding very hot plasma.
the article then goes on to show a problem with various portions the theory. But then goes on to make a final turn.
Is the point that the big bang is theory being undermined by inconsistencies —where cause and effect should be consistent and correlate positively with other lines of evidence.
Or does the article argue in the end that the pieces of evidence for the big bang theory do agree with each other.
I think the article points to the well known problem of “the missing Lithium” in the Big Bang Theory. LENR can account for it.
Researchers account for some of the lithium missing from our universe
Phys.org ^ | 7/01/2021 | by University of Tokyo
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3972640/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.